Quadro K5200 vs Quadro M4000M
Quadro K5200
Popular choices:
Quadro M4000M
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The Quadro K5200 is positioned at rank 254 and the Quadro M4000M is on rank 4, so the Quadro M4000M offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Quadro K5200
Performance Per Dollar Quadro M4000M
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Quadro K5200 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 0% higher G3D Mark score and 100% more VRAM (8 GB vs 4 GB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Quadro M4000M.
| Insight | Quadro K5200 | Quadro M4000M |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+0%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-0%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2014 / Kepler (2012−2018)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | — | — |
💎 Value Proposition
While current pricing data is unavailable, the Quadro K5200 remains the clear technical winner. Check real-time availability to determine if the performance gap justifies the market price.
Performance Check
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Quadro K5200 and Quadro M4000M
Quadro K5200
The Quadro K5200 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in July 22 2014. It features the Kepler architecture. The core clock ranges from 667 MHz to 771 MHz. It has 2304 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 150W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 6,149 points. Launch price was $1,699.74.
Quadro M4000M
The Quadro M4000M is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in August 18 2015. It features the Maxwell 2.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 975 MHz to 1013 MHz. It has 1,280 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 100W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 6,148 points.
Graphics Performance
The Quadro K5200 scores 6,149 and the Quadro M4000M reaches 6,148 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Quadro K5200 is built on Kepler while the Quadro M4000M uses Maxwell 2.0, both on a 28 nm process. Shader units: 2,304 (Quadro K5200) vs 1 (Quadro M4000M). Raw compute: 3.553 TFLOPS (Quadro K5200) vs 2.496 TFLOPS (Quadro M4000M). Boost clocks: 771 MHz vs 1013 MHz.
| Feature | Quadro K5200 | Quadro M4000M |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 6,149 | 6,148 |
| Architecture | Kepler | Maxwell 2.0 |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 2304+80% | 1,280 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 3.553 TFLOPS+42% | 2.496 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 771 MHz | 1013 MHz+31% |
| ROPs | 48 | 64+33% |
| TMUs | 192+140% | 80 |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Quadro K5200 | Quadro M4000M |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The Quadro K5200 comes with 8 GB of VRAM, while the Quadro M4000M has 4 GB. The Quadro K5200 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 256-bit vs 256-bit.
| Feature | Quadro K5200 | Quadro M4000M |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 8 GB+100% | 4 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Bus Width | 256-bit | 256-bit |
Power & Dimensions
The Quadro K5200 draws 150W versus the Quadro M4000M's 100W — a 40% difference. The Quadro M4000M is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Quadro K5200) vs 350W (Quadro M4000M). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered.
| Feature | Quadro K5200 | Quadro M4000M |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 150W | 100W-33% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Slots | — | 1 |
| Temp (Load) | — | 80°C |
| Perf/Watt | 41.0 | 61.5+50% |
Value Analysis
The Quadro M4000M is the newer GPU (2015 vs 2014).
| Feature | Quadro K5200 | Quadro M4000M |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $2250 | — |
| Avg Price (30d) | $70 | — |
| Codename | GK110B | GM204 |
| Release | July 22 2014 | August 18 2015 |
| Ranking | #391 | #392 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Quadro K5200 and Quadro M4000M
